Consultation outcome

Consultation response: appropriate measures for permitted ELV facilities

Updated 19 October 2023

Introduction

The purpose of this consultation was to get stakeholder views on our draft new guidance. Existing guidance on the depollution of end of life vehicles (ELVs) was developed in 2011 and is due for review. This is an opportunity to review, consolidate and modernise the existing guidance.

The guidance sets out appropriate measures for permitted facilities that take ELVs for storage and treatment. We have produced this guidance to improve how permitted facilities in the ELV sector operate. We want to make sure that standards are clear, consistent, proportionate, and enforceable.

Main findings and summary

The term ‘waste tracking’ appears to have caused some confusion with some respondents.

It is important to make the distinction between the term ‘waste tracking’ and national mandatory digital waste tracking system as outlined in our Resources and waste strategy for England that will be required from 2025 under waste regulatory reform. A waste tracking system is essential to decide what type of waste is allowed under your permit and to ensure you are keeping to the requirements and limits of your permit. A waste tracking system may be a simple stock control or inventory control system.

An electronic waste tracking system is a preferred option with many operators finding these are often easier to interrogate and audit. Many operators use electronic systems to identify parts that have been removed for reuse. However, we recognise that not all sites have access to a computerised system and a manual system may be acceptable if it holds the same level of detail as an electronic system.

Operators of ELV sites are required to provide quarterly hazardous waste returns and yearly site waste returns. A waste tracking system can help operators to provide accurate returns.

Some respondents did not feel that waste tracking could be achieved by smaller authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) who do not have access to a weighbridge.

We agree that only a few smaller ATFs will have weighbridges. However, there are different ways to assess a vehicle’s weight other than by weighbridge. Reference to competent data sources such as the International Dismantling Information System (IDIS) and manufacturers are examples. IDIS is a free resource for all ATFs to access and use.

Some respondents wanted greater detail on the type of systems that we would expect to abate (reduce) emissions.

We have provided a reference to CIRIA 736 which gives details of different types of abatement and containment systems to prevent emissions. It would not be appropriate to replicate all of this information within our guidance document.

The type and complexity of the abatement systems will depend upon your site and the risks posed by your operation.

There is a general concern that there is not enough detail available around the storage and treatment of hybrid and electric vehicles. Some additional risks have been identified through the consultation.

We acknowledge that more information needs to be available to the ELV sector. There are already discussions taking place about producing additional sector specific guidance. Where additional risks have been identified through the consultation, these have been added into the guidance.

We support the production of sector led guidance that provides specific information in relation to the storage and treatment of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Using impermeable surfacing for oil contaminated parts has been a long-standing requirement to prevent contamination to soil or groundwater. We proposed to extend this requirement to all fluid contaminated parts.

This proposal was thought to be unnecessary and excessive with little environmental benefit. A suggestion to only require this additional measure where there was a risk of contamination was a more proportional response.

The wording of the guidance has now been changed to address the concerns and to align with our internal guidance, as follows:

Oils, fluids, and other components removed as part of the depollution process should be stored in a manner that prevents contamination and in separate containers. If pollution is likely to occur, then fluid contaminated parts should be stored in an area that has an impermeable surface and sealed drainage.

We have changed the guidance to only require this additional measure where a risk of pollution existed. An operator can propose alternative measures where the same level of environmental protection can be achieved, for example storage in sealed containers.

How we ran the consultation

We shared pre-consultation draft versions of the permits with key stakeholders during 2022. We reviewed the comments and used them to amend the proposed guidance.

We carried out a formal consultation process from 16 January to 16 June 2023, using our online Citizen Space consultation website.

In total we asked 14 questions. We received 12 responses to the consultation. However, not all respondents provided answers to all the questions.

All the responses were received through the Citizen Space consultation website or via a dedicated email address.

Only 8 of the respondents agreed for their comments to be published. A list of those respondents is provided in the annex at the end of this document.

Consultation questions and responses

1: Please tell us if you are responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation or group.

Your response

There were 12 responses to this part of the question:

• 1 as an individual
• 11 from an organisation or group

2: Can we publish your response? We will not publish any personal information or parts of your response that will reveal your identity.

Your response

There were 12 responses to this question:

• 8 answered yes
• 4 answered no

3: Please tell us how you found out about this consultation?

Your response

There were 10 responses to this part of the question:

• 5 answered from the Environment Agency
• 5 answered from another organisation
• 2 did not answer

4: Section 1 of the guidance has an introduction to when and where the guidance applies. Do you think it is clear about the types of facility it applies to?

There were 9 responses to this part of the question:

• 8 answered yes
• 1 answered no
• 3 did not answer

Your response

The respondent who answered no to this question did not feel there was sufficient clarity around the term ELV.

Most of the respondents thought that this point was clear.

Our response

Directive 2000/53/EC (known as the ‘ELV Directive’) sets out minimum standards for dismantling and recycling ELVs. Its purpose is to minimise the environmental impacts of dismantling ELVs and to set targets for reuse, recycling, and recovery of ELVs and their components.

The ELV Directive requirements relate only to cars and light commercial vehicles. However, the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) have extended these requirements to cover all motor vehicles, including motorbikes and commercial vehicles.

We acknowledge that although the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) relates to all vehicles, this guidance is suited to the more common motor road vehicles.

5: ELVs are more readily characterised than other wastes but storage and treatment facilities must still carry out pre-acceptance assessments to fully understand the nature of the wastes they are receiving.

Do you agree the information requirements in section 3.3 will achieve this?

There were 9 responses to this part of the question:

• 1 yes
• 6 no
• 2 do not know
• 3 did not answer

Do you agree that the examples provided are appropriate for the ELV sector?

There were 8 responses to this part of the question .

Your response

One respondent commented that there was no commercial waste tracking system available to track waste.

Two respondents commented that many responsible operators would carry out waste tracking as a matter of course anyway.

Another respondent commented that licensed registered scrap metal dealers are required to provide this information to the local authority as part of their licence requirements.

Another respondent commented that pre-acceptance assessments were not always possible before the ELV arrives at the ATF.

Our response

It is important to make the distinction between the term ‘waste tracking’ and national mandatory digital waste tracking system. This is outlined in our Resources and waste strategy for England that will be required from 2025 under waste regulatory reform .

A waste tracking system is essential to decide what type of waste is allowed under your permit and to ensure you are keeping to the requirements and limits of your permit. A waste tracking system may be a simple stock control or inventory control system.

An electronic waste tracking system is preferred as these are often easier to interrogate and audit. However, we recognise that not all sites have access to a computerised system and a manual system may be acceptable if it holds the same level of detail as an electronic system.

We agree that many responsible operators already have a waste tracking system in place to manage stock and inventory to ensure they are meeting the requirements of their permits. ATFs should carry out pre-acceptance checks to determine if there is sufficient space on site to receive and treat an ELV without exceeding permit limits. This will also determine if they are able to store and process certain types of ELV.

Operators of ELV sites are required to provide a quarterly hazardous waste return and annual waste return. A waste tracking system should allow operators to provide accurate details when compiling the quarterly hazardous waste return.

A pre-acceptance procedure should prevent unsuitable vehicles from entering an ATF. One example is where a site is only permitted to store and treat internal combustion engine vehicles. A robust pre-acceptance procedure should prevent hybrid and electric vehicles from being accepted on site. We acknowledge that on occasions it may not be possible to carry out a pre-acceptance check until the vehicle arrives at the ATF, but any pre-acceptance checks should be robust enough to prevent an unwanted ELV from being delivered to the site.

6: Do you agree the requirements set out in section 3.2 and 3.3 on waste tracking are appropriate measures for an ELV facility?

Please provide further information to explain your answer.

There were 8 responses to this part of the question:

• 1 yes
• 6 no
• 1 do not know
• 4 did not answer

Your response

One respondent commented that assessing vehicle weights would be difficult as very few ATFs have weighbridges. In addition, a commercial data look-up system to determine a vehicle weight would be too expensive for many ATFs.

One respondent commented that the measures being proposed may be suitable for larger sites but not for those small to medium enterprise (SME) sites, handling just a few cars a week.

Another respondent commented that most ATF operators are aware of these risks through experience, skills, training and by implementing a common-sense approach.

Our response

We agree that only a few smaller ATFs will have weighbridges. However, a vehicle weight can be assessed in other ways such as by reference to International Dismantling Information System (IDIS), manufacturer’s data or some other competent data source. IDIS is a free resource for all ATFs.

We agree that not all measures will be appropriate for all sites. Some measures may not be suitable or relevant for your operation. Appropriate measures will depend on the:

• activities being carried out
• size and nature of the activities
• location of the site

7: Section 6 outlines a range of measures that must be used to control emissions to the environment. Not all will be applicable in all circumstances. Do you agree section 6 includes all the appropriate measures that are likely to be relevant to ELV storage and treatment facilities?

Please provide further information to support your answer.

There were 9 responses to this part of the question.

• 3 yes
• 3 no
• 3 do not know
• 3 did not answer

There were 6 responses offering further information.

Your response

One respondent commented that competent ATF operators are already aware of and implement such measures anyway.

Our response

We acknowledge that many competent ATF operators already implement such measures to control emissions to the environment. This guidance sets out the standards that all ATF operators should comply with that are appropriate to their sites to prevent emissions to the environment.

8: It is appropriate to plan to prevent accidental emissions to the environment. You can achieve this by various methods, including containment and abatement of emissions from the following sources: overflows, vents and safety relief valves. Do you agree that the examples provided are appropriate for the ELV sector? Do you have any other examples we could use?

Please provide further information to support your answer.

There were 8 responses to this part of the question:

• 3 yes
• 2 no
• 3 do not know
• 4 did not answer

There were 5 responses providing further information.

Your response

One respondent commented that the examples given would only be suitable for an enclosed building to prevent emissions.

Another respondent wanted further detail on what abatement systems to prevent emissions were appropriate.

Our response

We acknowledge that the examples given may be appropriate to prevent emissions to the environment from enclosed buildings. Different types of systems to prevent emissions can be found in CIRIA 736. The type and complexity of the abatement systems will depend upon the site and the environmental risks posed by the operation.

9: It is appropriate to have procedures for checking ELVs (or components) to make sure they are compatible with other substances they may accidentally come into contact with.

Substances that are incompatible with others have led to fires and other pollution events. One example is batteries being stored with flammable liquids or combustible materials. Do you agree with the example provided?

There were 9 responses to this part of the question:

• 7 yes
• 2 no
• 0 do not know
• 3 did not answer

Do you have other examples we could use?

Please provide further information to support your answer.

There were 5 responses to this part of the question.

Your response

One respondent highlighted that there was a fire risk as well as a risk of electric shock and that damaged batteries may not be evident until inspected or dismantled.

Additional safety concerns of incorrect lifting techniques causing damage to the battery. Incorrect transportation methods such as towing could generate power to the battery.

Another respondent expressed concern that storage of batteries from electric vehicles poses significant increase in risk.

Our response

We have changed the wording in the guidance to include the additional risks highlighted in your responses.

10: Using impermeable surfacing for oil contaminated parts has been a long-standing requirement to prevent contamination to soil or groundwater. Do you agree that it would be appropriate to extend this requirement to all fluid contaminated parts removed as part of the depollution process?

There were 9 responses to this part of the question:

• 6 yes
• 2 No
• 1 do not know
• 3 did not answer

Please provide further information to support your answer.

There were 5 responses to this part of the question.

Your response

One respondent commented that it would be impractical to extend this requirement to other parts that are contaminated with fluid. They said that existing procedures already prevent contamination to soil and groundwater.

Another respondent commented that they would have no concern with this proposed approach.

Another respondent agreed that this was the correct approach only where there was a risk of contamination.

Our response

We have changed the wording in the guidance to address the concerns of respondents. The guidance provides the following wording: Oils, fluids and other components removed as part of the depollution process should be stored in a manner that prevents contamination and in separate containers. If contamination is likely to occur, then fluid contaminated parts should be stored in an area that has an impermeable surface and sealed drainage.

11: Existing guidance states that there are only 3 types of gases found in vehicle air conditioning systems: R12, R134a and HFO-1234yf (2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene)

Do you agree that this statement is still correct or are other types of gases used in vehicle air conditioning systems that we should reference in the proposed guidance?

Your response

There were 10 responses to this part of the question:

• 7 yes
• 0 no
• 3 do not know
• 2 did not answer

Please provide further information to support your answer.

There were 5 responses to this part of the question.

Your response

Those that responded yes to this question have confirmed that these are the only gases used in mobile air conditioning systems.

One respondent commented that R12 and R134a are the main air conditioning gases in use.

Our response

We are satisfied that the air conditioning gases highlighted in the guidance are the ones used in mobile air conditioning systems and we will not make any changes to the guidance.

12: The risk of electric shock due to high powered batteries in electric end of life vehicles (EELVs) is well known. Other risks can include damage to the battery by inappropriate lifting (for example, with a forklift truck) or towing. Are there any other risks or best practice specific to EELVs that we should include in this guidance?

There were 9 responses to this part of the question:

• 6 yes
• 1 no
• 2 do not know
• 3 did not answer

Your response

Two respondents commented that the risk from electric end of life vehicle (EELV) batteries is not just restricted to electric shock but also chemical and fire risk.

One respondent commented that damage to an EELV battery may not be apparent until the vehicle is inspected and that the incorrect transporting techniques such as towing can generate power from the battery.

Another respondent commented that other components such as capacitors can also hold residual charge and provide a risk of electric shock or fire if not handled correctly.

There is a view within the industry that there is insufficient knowledge and information within the sector around handling of hybrids and electric vehicles and that further guidance would be helpful.

Our response

We have expanded the wording in the guidance to include all risks from batteries including the risks from chemical burns, fire, and residual charge.

The guidance signposts the reader to current Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance, which provides the most up to date information on safe handling of hybrid and electric vehicles. There are discussions within the sector around providing sector-led guidance which focuses on depollution of hybrid and electric vehicles. We support the development of any industry led guidance.

13: Sections 4.4 and 5.4 describe the appropriate measures for storing and handling batteries. Is there enough detail about the risks associated with storing and treating electric or hybrid end of life vehicle batteries? If not, what additional information should we include?

Your response

There were 9 responses to this part of the question:

• 5 yes
• 3 no
• 1 do not know
• 3 did not answer

Please provide further information to support your answer.

There were 7 responses to this part of the question.

Your response

One respondent commented that existing guidance is clear and concise.

Other respondents commented that there should be more guidance on storage and treatment of batteries from end-of-life hybrid or electric vehicles.

Our response

This guidance provides general safety advice on storing and treating hybrid and electric vehicles. It is acknowledged that battery size ,condition design, location, and safety features vary depending upon the vehicle. For this reason, the guidance recommends referring to the manufacturer’s data sheet or other competent data sources to help understand how to work safely on different vehicle battery systems.

The sector has recognised the need for better guidance on storing, handling, and treating batteries from hybrid and electric vehicles. The sector is discussing the development of sector led guidance specifically for depollution of hybrid and electric vehicles. We support the development of any sector led guidance specific to the safe handling of hybrid and electric vehicles.

14: We really value your feedback on our proposals. Please tell us if you have any further comments and provide as much information as possible to support your answer.

Your response

There were 10 responses to this part of the question.

A number of respondents expressed concerns around proportionality of the measures being proposed.

A number of respondents thought that that the guidance was unnecessary as there was sufficient guidance and regulation around depollution of ELVs.

One respondent wanted clarity on why this guidance was being produced.

Another respondent sought clarification on whether this guidance was for manual or mechanical depollution of ELVs.

Our response

Appropriate measures are the standards that operators should meet to comply with their environmental permit requirements. This guidance sets out what you must consider when you assess the appropriate measures for your site. It is not definitive, and it does not replace your obligation to assess appropriate measures fully. We consider this a proportionate and pragmatic approach.

Some measures may not be suitable or relevant for your operation. Appropriate measures will depend on the:

• activities being carried out
• size and nature of the activities
• location of the site

Where a measure is not suitable, an operator can propose alternative measures that achieve the same level of environmental protection, or they can provide an explanation of why a specific measure is not appropriate.

The current Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) depollution guidance was developed in 2011 and needs review. This is an opportunity to refresh, update and consolidate existing guidance and reformat in line with the agreed appropriate measures guidance template.

This guidance is designed for both manual and mechanical depollution of ELVs. To help with clarity we have changed the wording in the guidance and no longer refers to ‘manual and mechanical’ depollution.

Next steps

We have used responses from this consultation to inform the final version of ‘End of life vehicles: appropriate measures for permitted facilities’.

Individuals who wish to follow up their responses, or points made within this document, in more detail are welcome to contact us:

Email enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for all respondents taking the time to respond to this consultation.

The following respondents agreed for their comments to be published:

• The Vehicle Recyclers Association (VRA)
• European Metals Recycling Association (EMRA)
• British Vehicle Salvage Federation (BVSF)
• Organisation (unidentified)
• NIRRO Ltd
• British Tyre Manufacturers Association
• UK Material Handling Association (UKMHA)
• Sunrise Auto Spares Ltd